Qualifiers to State

I don't ever recall Troy getting 6 boys teams in the past. There will definitely be some teams that haven't made it in the past that have a shot at this 6th spot. Tippecanoe, Turpin Miamisburg come to mind.

1663855790921.png
 

effit

Member
I’m not a fan of these changes. Troy D3 girls are being reduced to 3 state qualifiers. The latest coaches poll has 4 teams ranked in the top eight. Regionals should be about getting the best 20 teams to the state meet not based on the number of small schools in your region. Imagine being on the best girls team in your school’s history, ranked eighth in state and not qualifying for a 20 team state meet.
 

CC Track Fan

Well-known member
I’m not a fan of these changes. Troy D3 girls are being reduced to 3 state qualifiers. The latest coaches poll has 4 teams ranked in the top eight. Regionals should be about getting the best 20 teams to the state meet not based on the number of small schools in your region. Imagine being on the best girls team in your school’s history, ranked eighth in state and not qualifying for a 20 team state meet.
This is how it is for every sport. In team sports the top two teams in the state very well may meet in district final game. OSHAA is all about equal represation thoughout the state at state tournament.
 
It would be nice if there was a system that put the most talented teams on the start line at the state, rather than simply geographic proportions.

What does that system look like though? How do we fairly decide which teams are most deserving of earning those "merit-based" spots?

1. Polls? See any number of threads on here questioning the validity of those. A handful of voting coaches in the state then wield tremendous power in dishing out state berths.

2. Milesplit rankings? Everyone one here already loses their collective minds about courses being long, short, uphill, downhill, hot, cold, and everything in between. Especially in cross country, time based rankings are a waste of time.

3. Head-to-head results during the season? What does that look like? Do teams now have to travel to certain meets to race teams from other regions, like NCAA does with meets like Pre-Nats and Wisconsin?
 
  • Like
Reactions: VFL
I’m not a fan of these changes. Troy D3 girls are being reduced to 3 state qualifiers. The latest coaches poll has 4 teams ranked in the top eight. Regionals should be about getting the best 20 teams to the state meet not based on the number of small schools in your region. Imagine being on the best girls team in your school’s history, ranked eighth in state and not qualifying for a 20 team state meet.
Southwest Ohio girls have had this argument for years, go back and look. I believe last year there were 7 teams ranked in the top 12 from that regional and only 4 or 5 were allowed to advanced. It has to be based on participant, it's the only fair way. No realistic other way to do it. I like the college model but doesn't seem realistic for high school, ranking are not reliable, travel is an issue and no committee to digest the results of head to head or common opponents competitions.
 

madman

Well-known member
It would be nice if there was a system that put the most talented teams on the start line at the state, rather than simply geographic proportions.

Possibly, but could also put a nail in the sport's coffin. Talent naturally ebbs and flows in public school settings when kids are attracted to the sport at a similar rate. If the preponderance of teams at the state meet only come from 1 or 2 areas, my gut says interest will naturally decline in the other areas. This could easily create a downward spiral with broad interest in the sport waning as a result.

I think there's significant wisdom for the health of the sport in maintaining geographical representation.
 

effit

Member
I like what they did on the track side by adding the extra two at-large bids. It’s the best of both worlds. Geographical representation plus performance based qualifiers. Perhaps XC could somehow incorporate this system. I’d think a “plus 2” from the coaches rankings would be the fairest for those teams not making it out of regionals.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
I’m not a fan of these changes. Troy D3 girls are being reduced to 3 state qualifiers. The latest coaches poll has 4 teams ranked in the top eight. Regionals should be about getting the best 20 teams to the state meet not based on the number of small schools in your region. Imagine being on the best girls team in your school’s history, ranked eighth in state and not qualifying for a 20 team state meet.
This is why I would be in favor of a combination of both how a person/team places at the qualifying meet AND their ranking within the state. This will invariably bring 99% of the best to the state meet.
 

gatornation

Active member
Those OHSAA rankings should in no way determine who makes it to State. They are in many ways strictly based on Milesplit rankings and could easily be manipulated to help "friends" make it to State.
 

madman

Well-known member
This is why I would be in favor of a combination of both how a person/team places at the qualifying meet AND their ranking within the state. This will invariably bring 99% of the best to the state meet.
What would you use as a basis for the "ranking wtihin the state"? If you're going to use times, we have no need to discuss this further.
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
What would you use as a basis for the "ranking wtihin the state"? If you're going to use times, we have no need to discuss this further.
What would you use as a basis for the "ranking wtihin the state"? If you're going to use times, we have no need to discuss this further.
My expertise is in T&F. I will leave XC qualifying specifics to others. However, I would lean towards time qualifiers for individuals. As for teams, I don't know how the current ranking system works, but I suspect a hybrid of coaches' polls AND an easily calculable team top-5 average might solve any who wouldn't normally qualify under the current scenario.
 

CC Track Fan

Well-known member
I like what they did on the track side by adding the extra two at-large bids. It’s the best of both worlds. Geographical representation plus performance based qualifiers. Perhaps XC could somehow incorporate this system. I’d think a “plus 2” from the coaches rankings would be the fairest for those teams not making it out of regionals.
For boys 9.4% and 12.7% of girls teams already make the state meet there is no reason for even more team to qualify.
 

Finishtiming

Active member
I like what they did on the track side by adding the extra two at-large bids. It’s the best of both worlds. Geographical representation plus performance based qualifiers. Perhaps XC could somehow incorporate this system. I’d think a “plus 2” from the coaches rankings would be the fairest for those teams not making it out of regionals.
Track is much easier to do with at large as the sites are all the same distance and throw or jump the same. XC cannot do this and I feel this becomes a problem with using a poll to do this. We all know time cannot be used and unless you have a dedicated group that would look at head to head competition throughout the year (and who is to say each team was full strength at that time) I don't see how this is fair at all.

Now lets look at the current state meet course. You are now adding more athletes to make that first turn that everyone complains about.

We already are getting 4 more teams than we did in the past (20 over the old 16) and the race size is fairly large for a meet of this caliber. If you want to do this then lets go back to even regions and all regions get 5 teams and 20 individuals.

You want to add 2 more teams but what about the extra individuals (how do you determine those)?

Now you are making this a participation sport by just giving everyone a medal. Life is not fair sometimes but for us to just keep making it easier and easier to get to the next level is not helping anyone. If you want more people at the state meet then push the 4th division more than extra qualifiers.
 

Supertramp

Active member
Track is much easier to do with at large as the sites are all the same distance and throw or jump the same. XC cannot do this and I feel this becomes a problem with using a poll to do this. We all know time cannot be used and unless you have a dedicated group that would look at head to head competition throughout the year (and who is to say each team was full strength at that time) I don't see how this is fair at all.

Now lets look at the current state meet course. You are now adding more athletes to make that first turn that everyone complains about.

We already are getting 4 more teams than we did in the past (20 over the old 16) and the race size is fairly large for a meet of this caliber. If you want to do this then lets go back to even regions and all regions get 5 teams and 20 individuals.

You want to add 2 more teams but what about the extra individuals (how do you determine those)?

Now you are making this a participation sport by just giving everyone a medal. Life is not fair sometimes but for us to just keep making it easier and easier to get to the next level is not helping anyone. If you want more people at the state meet then push the 4th division more than extra qualifiers.
Finishtiming is the voice of reason.

Speaking of that first turn, are there any ideas to adjust that for this year? I always felt like they could shift the start line to the left and angle it, that way the turn is less sharp.

But perhaps I’m misremembering what might be feasible.
 

Finishtiming

Active member
Finishtiming is the voice of reason.

Speaking of that first turn, are there any ideas to adjust that for this year? I always felt like they could shift the start line to the left and angle it, that way the turn is less sharp.

But perhaps I’m misremembering what might be feasible.
By moving the mile and 2 mile to the turf the turn is less sharp but could still use a little more but I do not think it is being done anymore than that. The way it was run at preseason is the way it will run at state.
 

ohiorunner13

New member
Track is much easier to do with at large as the sites are all the same distance and throw or jump the same. XC cannot do this and I feel this becomes a problem with using a poll to do this. We all know time cannot be used and unless you have a dedicated group that would look at head to head competition throughout the year (and who is to say each team was full strength at that time) I don't see how this is fair at all.

Now lets look at the current state meet course. You are now adding more athletes to make that first turn that everyone complains about.

We already are getting 4 more teams than we did in the past (20 over the old 16) and the race size is fairly large for a meet of this caliber. If you want to do this then lets go back to even regions and all regions get 5 teams and 20 individuals.

You want to add 2 more teams but what about the extra individuals (how do you determine those)?

Now you are making this a participation sport by just giving everyone a medal. Life is not fair sometimes but for us to just keep making it easier and easier to get to the next level is not helping anyone. If you want more people at the state meet then push the 4th division more than extra qualifiers.
Agree, you cannot use times for XC for postseason qualifications across the State (such as at-large bids like track does)..way too many variables, as well as with polls/rankings using PRs/times (once again too many variables). I think what they have now is good. 20 teams is plenty, and I think any other way of figuring out the 20 team qualifiers is too complicated and once again too many variables and flaws. If someone is complaining about the current system, well, be top X in your region as a team so you can qualify to state and stop whining.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
Stacked regions are nothing new.

Anyone remember DII boys in 2003? 6 of the top 7 teams in that race were from Boardman, including the entire top 5. Oh, and I am citing that particular year for a reason. Some might wonder if there was any team behind the 6 that made state that was of the same caliber as those 6. Yes, we know that there was because that was the year Salem was granted an injunction to run at state. Salem placed 3rd in the race at state before they were ultimately expunged from the meet results.

2002 was a 1-5 team sweep at state for DII Boardman.

2004 netted he entire top 5 team spots and 6 of the top 8 spots at state.

DII Boardman yielded the top 3 teams and 4 of the top 5 at state in 2005. Walsh Jesuit was ranked #2 in the poll heading into regionals and did not advance. 3 of the top 4 teams in the state in that poll were from the same district meet (Woodridge, Walsh Jesuit, and St. V-M).

2006 saw Boardman with 4 of the top 6 DII boys teams at state.

2007 was a down year with the 4th Boardman team only placing 12th, but the region got it back together in 2008 by claiming 4 of the top 6 team places at state.
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
It would be nice if there was a system that put the most talented teams on the start line at the state, rather than simply geographic proportions.
Explain how the current system does not? The exception would be if somehow Tiffin had the best 3-4 teams in the state. They only give out awards to the Champions and Runners up, so even with Tiffin only getting 2 teams, they still have the chance of going 1-2 if they are that good. You are pretty much assured the top 4 teams are there and all the top individuals. As Mr. Slippery pointed out. Historically the most stacked Regional has been D2 Boardman, and no one from there is complaining that they aren't getting enough teams to the state meet.

You need to show your work. Go through the last 10 -20 years and show where the big fault is. Where teams are getting screwed.

Where teams are getting screwed are the small D1 schools. D1 needs split into two divisions if you want things to be more fair. The Schools from 300-600 need their own division.

I never leave the state meet and thing Geeze it would have been nice if the 9th best team from Region X was there.
 
Explain how the current system does not? The exception would be if somehow Tiffin had the best 3-4 teams in the state. They only give out awards to the Champions and Runners up, so even with Tiffin only getting 2 teams, they still have the chance of going 1-2 if they are that good. You are pretty much assured the top 4 teams are there and all the top individuals. As Mr. Slippery pointed out. Historically the most stacked Regional has been D2 Boardman, and no one from there is complaining that they aren't getting enough teams to the state meet.

You need to show your work. Go through the last 10 -20 years and show where the big fault is. Where teams are getting screwed.

Where teams are getting screwed are the small D1 schools. D1 needs split into two divisions if you want things to be more fair. The Schools from 300-600 need their own division.

I never leave the state meet and thing Geeze it would have been nice if the 9th best team from Region X was there.
All of the teams that have a realistic shot at winning state are there every year. If you are 5-8th in your regional they you weren't going to win state anyway. You will never please everyone.
 

gatornation

Active member
Anyone remember DII boys in 2003? 6 of the top 7 teams in that race were from Boardman, including the entire top 5. Oh, and I am citing that particular year for a reason. Some might wonder if there was any team behind the 6 that made state that was of the same caliber as those 6. Yes, we know that there was because that was the year Salem was granted an injunction to run at state. Salem placed 3rd in the race at state before they were ultimately expunged from the meet results.

2002 was a 1-5 team sweep at state for DII Boardman.

Those were the good old days!!
 

JAVMAN83

Well-known member
All of the teams that have a realistic shot at winning state are there every year. If you are 5-8th in your regional they you weren't going to win state anyway. You will never please everyone.
That may be true with regard to winning the state as a team. However, we've all known teams that finished 5th or 6th at a regional that could easily be top 10 at state.
 

Mr. Slippery

Well-known member
Anyone remember DII boys in 2003? 6 of the top 7 teams in that race were from Boardman, including the entire top 5. Oh, and I am citing that particular year for a reason. Some might wonder if there was any team behind the 6 that made state that was of the same caliber as those 6. Yes, we know that there was because that was the year Salem was granted an injunction to run at state. Salem placed 3rd in the race at state before they were ultimately expunged from the meet results.

2002 was a 1-5 team sweep at state for DII Boardman.

Those were the good old days!!
I know you were extremely happy in 2003. You may have also been very happy in 1996.
 

yj_runfan

Well-known member
Anyone remember DII boys in 2003? 6 of the top 7 teams in that race were from Boardman, including the entire top 5. Oh, and I am citing that particular year for a reason. Some might wonder if there was any team behind the 6 that made state that was of the same caliber as those 6. Yes, we know that there was because that was the year Salem was granted an injunction to run at state. Salem placed 3rd in the race at state before they were ultimately expunged from the meet results.

2002 was a 1-5 team sweep at state for DII Boardman.

Those were the good old days!!
The Good Old Days in D2 was 2001. The SW only got three qualifiers but took 1st, 2nd & 4th.
 

gatornation

Active member
I remember 1996 very foundly, Spurrier leading my beloved Gators to the first of 3 National Championships!! But 2006 might have been better when we beat Ohio State.
 

ohiorunner13

New member
i agree with a lot of these responses...I do think the system they have know with how many teams from each region is fine. The only thing i do NOT agree with is the tiffin region D1..sure Perrysburg won State last year in that region but that is not my arugment.. but I would say what bugs me is how at a "regional meet" you have such a small field of teams and individuals. How is that a regional experience? Less than 10 teams? on a course that would be MUCH better to field 24 teams rather than boardman..that is what upsets me. Boardman is a true XC course with some rolling hills and not a fast course but to have 24 teams at a regional meet, on a narrow course filled with great runners, it is very hectic and crazy, yet tiffin has a much much much better course to host that many teams of this caliber but instead they have 7 teams compared to boardmans 24..I also think geographically, many teams at boardman SHOULD be at tiffin (Think lorain county teams and such).. My post is not disagreeing with the regional set up across the state as mentioned but rather the skew of thinking (flawed) of why boardman has 24 teams at its regional meet and tiffin has 7..
 

psycho_dad

Well-known member
i agree with a lot of these responses...I do think the system they have know with how many teams from each region is fine. The only thing i do NOT agree with is the tiffin region D1..sure Perrysburg won State last year in that region but that is not my arugment.. but I would say what bugs me is how at a "regional meet" you have such a small field of teams and individuals. How is that a regional experience? Less than 10 teams? on a course that would be MUCH better to field 24 teams rather than boardman..that is what upsets me. Boardman is a true XC course with some rolling hills and not a fast course but to have 24 teams at a regional meet, on a narrow course filled with great runners, it is very hectic and crazy, yet tiffin has a much much much better course to host that many teams of this caliber but instead they have 7 teams compared to boardmans 24..I also think geographically, many teams at boardman SHOULD be at tiffin (Think lorain county teams and such).. My post is not disagreeing with the regional set up across the state as mentioned but rather the skew of thinking (flawed) of why boardman has 24 teams at its regional meet and tiffin has 7..
Yeah, so you obviously weren't around when teams from other Regions were sent to Tiffin and boys and girls teams were split between divisions and it was a mess. One year D2 teams from the Goodyear district took all 4 qualifying spots and all but 2 individuals spots in the girls. The NW District Board can choose to not hold District meets and just have it be a larger Regional Meet or qualify every team from Districts through to the Regional if they want a larger field. I disagree that teams from Boardman should be at Tiffin. I don't think Boardman has to have 24 teams at the Regional, but the NE board has decided to have that many. (I might be wrong on that) It's my understanding that the District Board decides how their teams get to the Regional. The number of qualifiers is set already as we see and it's just a matter of how they decide to whittle it down to that.
 

Altor

Well-known member
Yeah, so you obviously weren't around when teams from other Regions were sent to Tiffin and boys and girls teams were split between divisions and it was a mess. One year D2 teams from the Goodyear district took all 4 qualifying spots and all but 2 individuals spots in the girls. The NW District Board can choose to not hold District meets and just have it be a larger Regional Meet or qualify every team from Districts through to the Regional if they want a larger field. I disagree that teams from Boardman should be at Tiffin. I don't think Boardman has to have 24 teams at the Regional, but the NE board has decided to have that many. (I might be wrong on that) It's my understanding that the District Board decides how their teams get to the Regional. The number of qualifiers is set already as we see and it's just a matter of how they decide to whittle it down to that.
Yes, you are wrong on that.

The number of teams qualifying to each regional and which districts (as in DAB) they come from are determined by OHSAA staff using a formula and approved by the Board of Directors. The DABs determine how many district races they will run, how many teams (and thus how many individuals) will qualify from each of those races to the Regionals that they are assigned.

The NW CANNOT forego running districts for D1 in favor of putting everybody on the line at Tiffin. They can only qualify the 7 teams they have been allocated. They CAN determine whether they want to run 1, 2, or as many as 7 district races.
 

ohiorunner13

New member
I think there are a few teams from Boardman that SHOULD be at Tiffin when it comes to location as Tiffin is 20-30 minutes closer to their school opposed to Boardman (think Lorain country schools and many Cuyahoga county)..this argument would go well with track and the Amherst and Findlay regional location crisis
 
.
Top